Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 237

MOTION to Compel by Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury Motions referred to Jeremiah C. Lynch. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B, # 3 Attachment C) (APP, )

Michael E. Spreadbury

FILED

700 S. 4th Street

FEB H 2012

Hamilton, MT 59840
Telephone: [phone]

PATRICK E. DUFFY. CLERK

iII('~Dlei!EPU;rr-TY=CL"EER;;;K• • ""ISSO=U:"::LA­
M

[e-mail]
Pro Se Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISIRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

Cause No.: 9: ll-cv-II-64-DWM-JCL
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

)
)

v.

)

MOTION FOR ORDER

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

TO COMPEL LEE

CITY OF HAMILTON,

)

DISCOVERY FRCP 37(a)

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,

)

BOONE KARLBERG PC,

)

Defendants

)

Comes now Plaintiff with motion to move court to compel discovery from
Defendant Lee for failure to answer, refusal Plaintiff discovery in aforementioned.
Motion:
WHEREFORE Plaintiff moves court to compel Lee discovery, better discovery.

Plaintiff Motion to Compel Lee Discovery

Cause 9:11-cv-11-64-DWM-JCL

February 23, 2012

Defense opposes this motion.
Brief in SUl?pOrt:
Plaintiff served 18 discovery questions on Defendant Lee, court on November 11,
2011 due in 30 days per Federal Rules Civ. Procedure 26, well established practice
in Federal Circuits (Appendix A). Lee failed to respond to questions in violation
ofFRCP 37(a), (d). Plaintiff answered Lee 1st Interrogatory of August 12,2011 on
August 15,2011 (Appendix B). Discovery is not a one way proposition Hickman

v. Taylor 329 US 495 (1947).
This Honorable Court granted stay of proceedings for Lee starting December 13,
2011 as Plaintiff interrogatories due 7 days later. On January 30, 2012 Lee gave
notice (Doc. #204) to court of removal of stay. On January 31, 2012 an
unrecognized person Anita Harper Poe responded to Plaintiff interrogatories with
"objection" and "deny" without answer to interrogatories, although sworn notary
"answers" by Defendant Missoulian Editor Sherry Devlin on January 27,2012
(Appendix C). Anita Harper Poe violated this Honorable Court's LR 12.2 for
notice of appearance filed after Plaintiff indicated lapse.
Judicial Notice should be taken of non-appearance of Anita Harper Poe until
February 102012 (Doc. # 223). Answers of January 31, 2012 by Anita Harper Poe
are null due to non-appearance before this court until February 10,2011.
2

Plaintiff Motion to Compel lee Discovery

Cause 9:11-cv-1l-64-DWM-JCl

February 23, 2012

Honorable Court requires first appearance by attorney of record to be noticed of
Court Clerk. Court LR 12.2 (Appendix D).
Denial of discovery causes prejudice to the complaining litigant Goehring v.
th

Brophy 94 F. 3d at 1305 (9 Cir., 1996) citing Sablan v. Dept. ofFinance 886 F.
2d at 1321 (tjh Gir., /988). As Corporate designee Anita Harper Poe did not give

notice of appearance until February 10,2012 and voided Lee answers FRCP
30(b)(6), 31(a)(4). Plaintiff sought discovery from Lee, Anita Harper Poe
ineligible to be representative for Lee until notice of appearance.
As US District Court for Montana Missoula Division denies Plaintiff discovery in
aforementioned, is reviewable for abuse of discretion upon appeal Hallett v.
Morgan 296 F. 3d 732 (tjh Gir., 2002) citing Mabe v. San Bernadino Co. 237 F. 3d
1101

(tJh Gir., 2001).

Plaintiff moves court to compel Lee to give full discovery

answers Garrett v. City ofSan Francisco 818 F. 2d 1515 (tjh Gir., 1987).
As Anita Harper Poe was not recognized before this court prior to February 10,
2012 (Doc. #223) gave indication to court that she is illiterate in "answer" to
Request for Admission #1 (Appendix D) as Anita Harper Poe does not understand
the English Language, or is unclear of Plaintiff writing at grade 12 leveL If
Honorable court would like to accommodate Anita Harper Poe limited capacity to
understand the English language, Plaintiff yields. Plaintiff is unaware of Anita

3

Plaintiff Motion to Compel lee Discovery

Cause 9:11-cv-1l-64-DWM-JCl

February 23, 2012

Harper Poe status as English as Second Language, or other deficiency to be
accommodated by the Honorable Court.
Plaintiff clearly asked in Request for Production No.3 (Appendix D pg. 4) to name
any of Lee's internet service customers in the State of Montana or elsewhere. Ms.
Anita Harper Poe avers this question ambiguous, although it does not have more
than one meaning, nor is it unclear. Again, as a trained educator in Montana it
appears Ms Anita Harper Poe has reading comprehension, and basic understanding
issues of court rules, reading comprehension, and adherence to authority ofthis
court.
Further Plaintiff Request for Admission No.4 asks Lee if Defendant websites are
owned by Lee, a publisher of Newspapers (Appendix D pg 6). Question is not
ambiguous, nor is it seeking information irrelevant to the aforementioned. Lee is
claiming to be an' internet service provider such as AOL, or a Matchmaker.com
and is not answering discovery in good faith. Ms. Anita Haper Poe appears to have
a reading level of grade 5 based upon discovery answers in Appendix D.
As Lee failed to answer with the attorney of record on January 31, 2012 Jeffrey B.
Smith esq. violated PRCP 33. Plaintiff moves court to compel Lee, by order of this
Honorable court for Anita Harper Poe to answer questions posed by Plaintiff in
Discovery interrogatories served upon Lee November 21, 201 L

4

Plaintiff Motion to Compel lee Discovery

Cause 9:11-cv-U-64-DWM-JCL

February 23, 2012

Certificate of Compliance
From LR 7(d)(2)(E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certifY that this brief
conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced,
contains 710 words excluding title page, this compliance.

Respectfully submitted this

'rl

/_, /

~:da~fFebruary, 2012

!//1'
/J;;;;
"

. ,l/

I

Michael E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff

5